FEMA Deceives Nation About Twin Towers Core

[Gamolon]

Meaning the truth movement is not using evidence, what's new? How big is the false social group?

must be about 6 billion
LOL

1,414 verified architectural and engineering professionals and 10,913 other supporters have signed the petition demanding of Congress
a truly independent investigation.

AE911Truth.org

How many of those people are structural engineers? Would you call an architect to design a skyscraper?

WTC Building #7, a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane, exhibited all the characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives:

1. Rapid onset of collapse

It was not a rapid onset of a collapse. The mechanical penthouse fell into the building, then the collapse proceeded west, then the perimeter collapsed.

2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor - a second before the building's destruction

How many 47 story or taller buildings been demolished with explosives only on the ground floor?

3.Symmetrical "structural failure" -- through the path of greatest resistance -- at free-fall acceleration

Penthouse collapse, followed by a westward collapse of the core, followed by the exterior collapse is not symmetrical.

4. Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed in its own footprint

No, there was damage to adjacent buildings.

5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds

This is an example of controlled demolition??? Do you even know what pyroclastic clouds are? Was there a volcano in WTC7?

In the the aftermath of WTC7's destruction, strong evidence of demolition using incendary devices was discovered:

I thought you said it was explosives? Remember the "explosions" you said that were heard on the ground floor? Incendiaries don't explode.

9. Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly-qualified witnesses

Right. Molten metal. Steel? Aluminum? Which was it? Proof?

WTC7 exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:

1. Slow onset with large visible deformations

Ah, so you're making statements based on previous evidence? Can you show me a building constructed like WTC7 that caught fire and had no water for the sprinkler system AND had no firefighters actively fighting the fire? I'll wait here for the comparisons to pour in from you to be able to make this statement.

2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)

Wait. What? You just said this above?

3.Symmetrical "structural failure" -- through the path of greatest resistance -- at free-fall acceleration

3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel

At what temperature does steel start to soften and weaken?

4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never collapsed.

But there is one were the steel structure DID collapse, leaving the reinforced core. I thought you said that fires can't affect steel???? What happened then?

 

[Gamolon]

FEMA misrepresented the core structure. The presence of butt plates joining sections of vertical stel shows that steel is not core column. the absense of diagonals and gussets proves that verticalsteel is not core columns.

Please provide proof that bolted butt plates are ever used to join, end to end, steel columns. You're making this up and have no proof whatsoever.

 

[PhysicsExist]

must be about 6 billion
LOL

1,414 verified architectural and engineering professionals and 10,913 other supporters have signed the petition demanding of Congress
a truly independent investigation.

AE911Truth.org

How many of those people are structural engineers? Would you call an architect to design a skyscraper?



It was not a rapid onset of a collapse. The mechanical penthouse fell into the building, then the collapse proceeded west, then the perimeter collapsed.

How many 47 story or taller buildings been demolished with explosives only on the ground floor?



Penthouse collapse, followed by a westward collapse of the core, followed by the exterior collapse is not symmetrical.

No, there was damage to adjacent buildings.

This is an example of controlled demolition??? Do you even know what pyroclastic clouds are? Was there a volcano in WTC7?



I thought you said it was explosives? Remember the "explosions" you said that were heard on the ground floor? Incendiaries don't explode.


Right. Molten metal. Steel? Aluminum? Which was it? Proof?

Ah, so you're making statements based on previous evidence? Can you show me a building constructed like WTC7 that caught fire and had no water for the sprinkler system AND had no firefighters actively fighting the fire? I'll wait here for the comparisons to pour in from you to be able to make this statement.

Wait. What? You just said this above?

3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel

At what temperature does steel start to soften and weaken?

4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never collapsed.[/I]

But there is one were the steel structure DID collapse, leaving the reinforced core. I thought you said that fires can't affect steel???? What happened then?

Fires cannot create molten steel and iron in pools.

Stop playing these games.

In its July 2008 Draft Report for Public Comment, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) initially claimed that Building 7 collapsed 40% slower than free fall acceleration.

Why would NIST want to say Building 7 did not experience free fall? NIST’s lead technical investigator, Shyam Sunder, stated in the WTC 7 technical briefing that free fall could only happen when an object “has no structural components below it.”[ii] The only way for a building to have no structural components below it is to remove the lower structural components with an external force such as explosives. If the upper part of a building is crushing its lower structural components, in other words, doing the work of removing them, not all of its energy will be converted into motion and its descent will not be free fall.

A high school physics teacher named David Chandler objected to NIST’s initial claim, pointing out that, based on video footage of Building 7’s destruction, NIST’s claim contradicted “a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.”[iii] Mr. Chandler wrote a comment to NIST, saying, “Acknowledgement of and accounting for an extended period of free fall in the collapse of WTC 7 must be a priority if NIST is to be taken seriously.”[iv]

Responding to the criticism, NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall. According to NIST, “This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].”[v] However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7’s free fall descent could have occurred.

However, Mr. Chandler does explain how in Part 3 of his video, NIST Finally Admits Freefall, saying:[vi]

“In the case of a falling building, the only way it can go into free fall is if an external force removes the supporting structure. None of the gravitational potential energy of the building is available for this purpose, or it would slow the fall of the building. The fact of free fall by itself is strong evidence of explosive demolition, but the evidence of explosive demolition is even stronger than that.”

Mr. Chandler goes on to describe two particular attributes of Building 7’s free fall descent that make the evidence for explosive demolition even more overwhelming:

“What is particularly striking is the suddenness of onset of free fall. Acceleration doesn’t build up gradually. The graph [measuring the building’s descent] simply turns a corner. The building went from full support to zero support instantly.”

Secondly:

“The onset of freefall was not only sudden, it extended across the whole width of the building… The fact the roof stayed level shows the building was in free fall across the entire width.”

Mr. Chandler summarizes the meaning of these observations, saying:

“The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures. All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.”

Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall. The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.

 

[PhysicsExist]

Hey Toro, which conspiracy theory is worse? 9/11 or the "Holohoax"?

The demise and usurpation of the US Constitution is the worst. Do you agree?

the demise of the US Constitution is not a conspiracy as defined by the current connotation of the term "conspiracy theory".

9/11 is not a conspiracy theory, physics are not a conspiracy theory.

NIST's report is a conspiracy theory, the 9/11 commission report is a conspiracy theory.

BuildingWhat? - Building 7 | Stand with the 911 families demanding a NEW Building 7 investigation - What is Building 7 ?

 

[Gamolon]

Fires cannot create molten steel and iron in pools.

Stop playing these games.

You're the one playing games. I quotes exactly what you said and responded to it. Nowhere in points 3 and 4 where I quoted you did you say anything about molten steel.

Can you not read your own garbage? You mentioned that fires cannot soften steel. I asked you at what temp steel softens and loses it's strength.

 

[Gamolon]

A high school physics teacher named David Chandler objected to NIST’s initial claim, pointing out that, based on video footage of Building 7’s destruction, NIST’s claim contradicted “a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.”[iii] Mr. Chandler wrote a comment to NIST, saying, “Acknowledgement of and accounting for an extended period of free fall in the collapse of WTC 7 must be a priority if NIST is to be taken seriously.”[iv]

Responding to the criticism, NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall. According to NIST, “This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].”[v] However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7’s free fall descent could have occurred.

However, Mr. Chandler does explain how in Part 3 of his video, NIST Finally Admits Freefall, saying:[vi]

“In the case of a falling building, the only way it can go into free fall is if an external force removes the supporting structure. None of the gravitational potential energy of the building is available for this purpose, or it would slow the fall of the building. The fact of free fall by itself is strong evidence of explosive demolition, but the evidence of explosive demolition is even stronger than that.”

Mr. Chandler goes on to describe two particular attributes of Building 7’s free fall descent that make the evidence for explosive demolition even more overwhelming:

“What is particularly striking is the suddenness of onset of free fall. Acceleration doesn’t build up gradually. The graph [measuring the building’s descent] simply turns a corner. The building went from full support to zero support instantly.”

Secondly:

“The onset of freefall was not only sudden, it extended across the whole width of the building… The fact the roof stayed level shows the building was in free fall across the entire width.”

Mr. Chandler summarizes the meaning of these observations, saying:

“The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures. All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.”

Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall. The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.

Answer one simple question for me. Would I call Mr. Chandler, who is a physics teacher, to design a skyscraper? If not, why not. I mean, the structure has to resist gravity which has a lot to do with physics right?

He obviously doesn't understand loads and how structures are affected by them.

 

[PhysicsExist]

A high school physics teacher named David Chandler objected to NIST’s initial claim, pointing out that, based on video footage of Building 7’s destruction, NIST’s claim contradicted “a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.”[iii] Mr. Chandler wrote a comment to NIST, saying, “Acknowledgement of and accounting for an extended period of free fall in the collapse of WTC 7 must be a priority if NIST is to be taken seriously.”[iv]

Responding to the criticism, NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall. According to NIST, “This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].”[v] However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7’s free fall descent could have occurred.

However, Mr. Chandler does explain how in Part 3 of his video, NIST Finally Admits Freefall, saying:[vi]

“In the case of a falling building, the only way it can go into free fall is if an external force removes the supporting structure. None of the gravitational potential energy of the building is available for this purpose, or it would slow the fall of the building. The fact of free fall by itself is strong evidence of explosive demolition, but the evidence of explosive demolition is even stronger than that.”

Mr. Chandler goes on to describe two particular attributes of Building 7’s free fall descent that make the evidence for explosive demolition even more overwhelming:

“What is particularly striking is the suddenness of onset of free fall. Acceleration doesn’t build up gradually. The graph [measuring the building’s descent] simply turns a corner. The building went from full support to zero support instantly.”

Secondly:

“The onset of freefall was not only sudden, it extended across the whole width of the building… The fact the roof stayed level shows the building was in free fall across the entire width.”

Mr. Chandler summarizes the meaning of these observations, saying:

“The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures. All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.”

Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall. The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.

Answer one simple question for me. Would I call Mr. Chandler, who is a physics teacher, to design a skyscraper? If not, why not. I mean, the structure has to resist gravity which has a lot to do with physics right?

He obviously doesn't understand loads and how structures are affected by them.

You're in a stage that they call "DENIAL". Stop.

NIST Collapse Model
More than six years after starting its investigation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) issued its final report on Building 7 in November 2008. The most important part of NIST’s report was a collapse model that bore no resemblance to the observed collapse. In Part 3 of NIST Finally Admits Freefall, Mr. Chandler explains the centrality of the model in NIST’s investigation:

“NIST’s so-called investigation actually consists of finding a way to reproduce the mysterious collapse of the building using a computer model. The assumption is that if the computer model can be made to reproduce the observed collapse pattern, that must be how it happened… The very process of running the model until it produces the kind of results you’re looking for is called selection bias. If you think about it, NIST’s methodology is explicitly based on selection bias. Even if you can show what might have happened, it doesn’t show what actually did happen.”


Despite adjusting its inputs to achieve the desired result, the NIST model does not come close to reproducing the observed collapse:[ii]

This is also apparent by watching the two video animations of NIST’s collapse model and comparing them to video footage of the observed collapse.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

 

[DiveCon]

PE is in a stage they call delusional

and he still cant address the topic of this thread

 

[Obamerican]

A high school physics teacher named David Chandler objected to NIST’s initial claim, pointing out that, based on video footage of Building 7’s destruction, NIST’s claim contradicted “a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.”[iii] Mr. Chandler wrote a comment to NIST, saying, “Acknowledgement of and accounting for an extended period of free fall in the collapse of WTC 7 must be a priority if NIST is to be taken seriously.”[iv]

Responding to the criticism, NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall. According to NIST, “This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].”[v] However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7’s free fall descent could have occurred.

However, Mr. Chandler does explain how in Part 3 of his video, NIST Finally Admits Freefall, saying:[vi]

“In the case of a falling building, the only way it can go into free fall is if an external force removes the supporting structure. None of the gravitational potential energy of the building is available for this purpose, or it would slow the fall of the building. The fact of free fall by itself is strong evidence of explosive demolition, but the evidence of explosive demolition is even stronger than that.”

Mr. Chandler goes on to describe two particular attributes of Building 7’s free fall descent that make the evidence for explosive demolition even more overwhelming:

“What is particularly striking is the suddenness of onset of free fall. Acceleration doesn’t build up gradually. The graph [measuring the building’s descent] simply turns a corner. The building went from full support to zero support instantly.”

Secondly:

“The onset of freefall was not only sudden, it extended across the whole width of the building… The fact the roof stayed level shows the building was in free fall across the entire width.”

Mr. Chandler summarizes the meaning of these observations, saying:

“The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures. All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.”

Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall. The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.

Answer one simple question for me. Would I call Mr. Chandler, who is a physics teacher, to design a skyscraper? If not, why not. I mean, the structure has to resist gravity which has a lot to do with physics right?

He obviously doesn't understand loads and how structures are affected by them.

You're in a stage that they call "DENIAL". Stop.

NIST Collapse Model
More than six years after starting its investigation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) issued its final report on Building 7 in November 2008. The most important part of NIST’s report was a collapse model that bore no resemblance to the observed collapse. In Part 3 of NIST Finally Admits Freefall, Mr. Chandler explains the centrality of the model in NIST’s investigation:

“NIST’s so-called investigation actually consists of finding a way to reproduce the mysterious collapse of the building using a computer model. The assumption is that if the computer model can be made to reproduce the observed collapse pattern, that must be how it happened… The very process of running the model until it produces the kind of results you’re looking for is called selection bias. If you think about it, NIST’s methodology is explicitly based on selection bias. Even if you can show what might have happened, it doesn’t show what actually did happen.”


Despite adjusting its inputs to achieve the desired result, the NIST model does not come close to reproducing the observed collapse:[ii]

This is also apparent by watching the two video animations of NIST’s collapse model and comparing them to video footage of the observed collapse.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

You are an idiot. You can't answer a straight forward question. You post the same garbage over and over like some psychotic basket case. Grow up, little boy. Stomping your feet every time an ADULT disagrees with you is not helping your case.

 

[PhysicsExist]

Answer one simple question for me. Would I call Mr. Chandler, who is a physics teacher, to design a skyscraper? If not, why not. I mean, the structure has to resist gravity which has a lot to do with physics right?

He obviously doesn't understand loads and how structures are affected by them.

You're in a stage that they call "DENIAL". Stop.

NIST Collapse Model
More than six years after starting its investigation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) issued its final report on Building 7 in November 2008. The most important part of NIST’s report was a collapse model that bore no resemblance to the observed collapse. In Part 3 of NIST Finally Admits Freefall, Mr. Chandler explains the centrality of the model in NIST’s investigation:

“NIST’s so-called investigation actually consists of finding a way to reproduce the mysterious collapse of the building using a computer model. The assumption is that if the computer model can be made to reproduce the observed collapse pattern, that must be how it happened… The very process of running the model until it produces the kind of results you’re looking for is called selection bias. If you think about it, NIST’s methodology is explicitly based on selection bias. Even if you can show what might have happened, it doesn’t show what actually did happen.”


Despite adjusting its inputs to achieve the desired result, the NIST model does not come close to reproducing the observed collapse:[ii]

This is also apparent by watching the two video animations of NIST’s collapse model and comparing them to video footage of the observed collapse.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

You are an idiot. You can't answer a straight forward question. You post the same garbage over and over like some psychotic basket case. Grow up, little boy. Stomping your feet every time an ADULT disagrees with you is not helping your case.

care to address this fact?

Why would NIST want to say Building 7 did not experience free fall? NIST’s lead technical investigator, Shyam Sunder, stated in the WTC 7 technical briefing that free fall could only happen when an object “has no structural components below it.”[ii] The only way for a building to have no structural components below it is to remove the lower structural components with an external force such as explosives. If the upper part of a building is crushing its lower structural components, in other words, doing the work of removing them, not all of its energy will be converted into motion and its descent will not be free fall.
Responding to the criticism, NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall. According to NIST, “This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].”[v] However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7’s free fall descent could have occurred.

Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall. The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.

 

[Fizz]

Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall.

you are a fucking liar.

you completely ignore the rest of the collapse which CAN remove the supporting structure without explosives. YOU ARE A COMPLETE FUCKING IDIOT!!!

 

[Christophera]

Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall.

you are a fucking liar.

you completely ignore the rest of the collapse which CAN remove the supporting structure without explosives. YOU ARE A COMPLETE FUCKING IDIOT!!!

Since the opposite of what agents say is most often true, then you are pretending to be an idiot.

You have said that the rest of the building, like the lobby, jumped up and removed the 8 stories.

Is that like invisisteel core columns Einstein?

 

[DiveCon]

Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall.

you are a fucking liar.

you completely ignore the rest of the collapse which CAN remove the supporting structure without explosives. YOU ARE A COMPLETE FUCKING IDIOT!!!

Since the opposite of what agents say is most often true, then you are pretending to be an idiot.

You have said that the rest of the building, like the lobby, jumped up and removed the 8 stories.

Is that like invisisteel core columns Einstein?

the steel isnt invisible, dipshit
thats your invisicrete
no one can see ANY concrete ANYWHERE in the towers core at ANY time

 

[Christophera]

Your text lack substance. No core columns are visible here.

The west concrete core wall of WTC 1 is visible here.

On September 13, 2001 the engineer of record described a concrete core.The Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation that was published in 1992 describes a concrete core.

You are working to conceal treason. If you are going to do that then you are off topic. Here is where the laws dealing with your crimes are featured.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...ision-of-treason-filed-in-district-court.html

 

[DiveCon]

yet both those photos show STEEL core columns and not a bit of concrete

 

[Christophera]

No, none of that steel is inside the core area and this superimposition shows it.

The spire is outside the core and all of the streel seen is OUTSIDE with it.

 

[DiveCon]

you are fucking delusional
that isnt "outside" or "inside" the core, it IS the core

 

[Christophera]

Nah, I show all sides. The spire is idnetified in all shots. It is the NW corner of the steel columns SURROUNDING the core.

A structural engineer certified in 12 states identifies a concrete core in November 2001

August Domel, Ph.d SE. PE.​

 

[Ozmar]

Fuck you all the way to hell, Christophera.

 

[Christophera]

Fuck you all the way to hell, Christophera.

Living with loathing for freedom, rights, and the US Constitution must be hell. I won't join you.